The attack on Pearl Harbor is often referred to as a sneak attack, implying an action more dastardly than starting a war.

War is not analogous to a football game with rules & referees.

Click to expand...

Nomura and Kurusu were still lying to the US about Japan's intentions. Of course they didn't know what was going on, so their lies were the one the Gaimudaijin told them to tell. They sincerely wanted the peace be kept. They even proposed a meeting between Tojo Hidecki and FDR. The result was one of the oddest telegrams sent in 1941 when viewed in hindsight:

From: PHA, Pt. 12, Exhibits of the Joint Committee, pp. 213-14.

[Secret]
From: Washington
To: Tokyo
1 December 1941
(Purple)
#1227
Indications are that the United States desires to continue the negotiations even if it is necessary to go beyond their stands on the so-called basic principles. However, if we keep quibbling on the critical points, and continue to get stuck in the middle as we have been in the past, it is impossible to expect any further developments. If it is impossible from the broad political viewpoint, to conduct a leaders' meeting at this time, would it not be possible to arrange a conference between persons in whom the leaders have complete confidence, (for example, Vice President Wallace or Hopkins from the United States and the former Premier Konoye, who is on friendly terms with the President, or Adviser to the Imperial Privy Council Ishii). The meeting could be arranged for some midway point, such as Honolulu. High army and navy officers should accompany these representatives. Have them make one final effort to reach some agreement, using as the basis of their discussions the latest proposals submitted by each.

We feel that this last effort may facilitate the final decision as to war or peace.

We realize of course that an attempt to have President Roosevelt and former Premier Konoye meet, failed. Bearing in mind the reaction to that in our nation, it may be to our interest to first ascertain the U. S. attitude on this possibility. Moreover, since we have no guarantee either of success or failure of the objectives even if the meeting is held, careful consideration should first be given this matter.

Page 214

We feel, however, that to surmount the crisis with which we are face to face, it is not wasting our efforts to pursue every path open to us. It is our opinion that it would be most effective to feel out and ascertain the U. S. attitude regarding this matter, in the name of the Japanese Government. However, if this procedure does not seem practical to you in view of some internal condition, then how would it be if I were to bring up the subject as purely of my own origin and in that manner feel out their attitude. Then, if they seem receptive to it the government could make the official proposal.

originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

This was supposed to be a "date that will live in infamy". Om Dec. 7, 2017 I did not see any mention of it in any on-line news item or anything from the U.S. govt.

Click to expand...

It's ancient history. The United States is very close allies with Japan and Germany. There is hardly anyone alive that fought in WWII, and for the young people the war was something in the history books about as relevant to them as the Spanish American war.
70 years from now 911 will be that thing that happened in the past that is no longer relevant to the young people of that age. I'll bet Genghis Khan was a big deal at the time he was taking over the huge areas of the world, now his is just a curiosity if he is thought of at all.

And a day that will live in infamy isn't necessarily a day that will live in current memory. FDR originally wrote "a day that will live in history", but made a change just before he spoke before Congress.

If we had ended the Pacific war better, we might remember it more easily.

If we had ever told the truth of WWII in general we might find it more durable in memory - it's harder to remember stuff that doesn't quite add up, that's vague around the edges. How many Americans regard WWII in Europe as essentially a war between Russia and Germany?

The cable TV is full of WWII stuff these days - but it's mostly Europe. Dresden is easier to elide than Hiroshima, because it did not end the war. What happened in France after we liberated it is a more comfortable story than what happened in China, or Korea, or even the Philippines.

True story: in 1934 or thereabout Dresden had probably the best, most modern, most effective city fire fighting setup in the world. They were proud of it. Tokyo's was also very good, as was Nagasaki's.

It looks like the use of atomic bombs made Pearl Harbor fade into the background.

Click to expand...

Yeah, one was an act of war while the parties were officially at peace. The other saved many thousands of lives. Gen. Anami had ordered that all 104,000+ Allied POWs, men, women and children, be killed the second the first Allied boot touched the Home Islands. Japan would have killed non-combatants, as young as five years old, without compunction and in an effort to continue the bloodshed. We don't hear much about that because "USA BAD!" is so very popular among the ignorant.